< 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
 
   
 

A little more on the Documentary Hypothesis

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17990
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
16 December 2009 13:55
 
Andrew - 16 December 2009 07:57 AM

(Andrew):  That is a good example.  Both J and E often anthropomorphize (?) the diety.  It reflects an earlier, less sophisticated stage in the development of the religion.

Clearly religion was developed and changed with and over time.

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21959
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
17 December 2009 22:59
 
GAD - 16 December 2009 12:55 PM
Andrew - 16 December 2009 07:57 AM

(Andrew):  That is a good example.  Both J and E often anthropomorphize (?) the diety.  It reflects an earlier, less sophisticated stage in the development of the religion.

Clearly religion was developed and changed with and over time.

But of course.  Progressive revelation.

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17990
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
18 December 2009 01:30
 
Bruce Burleson - 17 December 2009 09:59 PM
GAD - 16 December 2009 12:55 PM
Andrew - 16 December 2009 07:57 AM

(Andrew):  That is a good example.  Both J and E often anthropomorphize (?) the diety.  It reflects an earlier, less sophisticated stage in the development of the religion.

Clearly religion was developed and changed with and over time.

But of course.  Progressive revelation.

But of course smirk It’s funnier that way…......

 
 
Daniel O. McClellan
 
Avatar
 
 
Daniel O. McClellan
Total Posts:  174
Joined  27-08-2009
 
 
 
20 December 2009 20:20
 

EDIT: duplicate post

[ Edited: 20 December 2009 20:32 by Daniel O. McClellan]
 
Daniel O. McClellan
 
Avatar
 
 
Daniel O. McClellan
Total Posts:  174
Joined  27-08-2009
 
 
 
20 December 2009 20:20
 
Andrew - 13 December 2009 01:44 PM

There is a lot of evidence that the Torah is a combination of traditions from various sources that were intentionally woven together.
There’s linguistic evidence, for one.  The Torah shows an evolution of the Hebrew language through several distinct periods, so it couldn’t have been written by one person at one time in history.  But one person (or a small group of people) could have combined traditions and myths from previous periods and retained the language peculiarities.

While I am in total agreement that the Pentateuch is crafted from multiple sources spread out over a long period of time, I think your explanations draw on rather outdated and uncritical opinions. To begin with, the possibility of dating texts through linguistic means has been a controversial topic for decades, with the scholarly consensus leaning toward the conclusion that it’s not a strong position. Some elements of very late Biblical Hebrew are distinguishable from early elements, but late authors also introduce archaicizing syntax and grammar into their texts when they want to make them look older. In addition, the repeated redaction of texts clouds the preciseness that some people want to believe is possible in linguistic text-dating. Texts like Ruth, for instance, have some elements of Biblical Hebrew prose that are considered very, very early, while other elements are argued by others to be very late.

Andrew - 13 December 2009 01:44 PM

There’s terminology.  Certain words and phrases occur consistently in a particular source, but never, or seldom, in another.  For instance, the phrase “be fruitful and multiply” occurs twelve times—-all in P.  The phrase “the place where Yahweh sets His name” or “the place where Yahweh tents His name” is found ten times in D, but never once in J, E or P.  The word cubit appears 59 times in the Torah, 56 are in P.

That sort of thing.  There are hundreds of examples.

But this kind of categorization can be done post-hoc. If we simply group terms together and draw lines around them saying “this is one source and this is another” then we preclude even the possibility of variation in genre and prose from a single author, which is never a good idea. While isolating elements of the narratives can suggest there are seams in the composition of the text, other considerations often mitigate that kind of evidence. This is why the documentary hypothesis has been revised so many times and is currently not favored over other theories, like the supplementary hypothesis and the new supplementary hypothesis.

Andrew - 13 December 2009 01:44 PM

Content is another bit of evidence.  The Tabernacle is mentioned only in P.  More than 200 times.  The ark of the covenant plays a significant role in J, but is never mentioned in EP describes the Urim and Thummim—an early method of casting lots that were kept by the High Priest—the Urim and Thummim get no ink in J, E, or D.

See above.

Andrew - 13 December 2009 01:44 PM

Narrative continuity is evident.  I’ve already shown how the flood story is an obvious conflation of two traditions, but there are other examples of the same thing—if the sources are separated, the different texts offer a continuous, rational narrative on their own.

I disagree that the marco-narratives provide continuity once isolated from each other. On a chapter by chapter basis this is sometimes found, but rarely on a larger scale than that. The original compositions were very rarely preserved to the degree that they can be pieced back together to form the original narratives.

Andrew - 13 December 2009 01:44 PM

There’s a bunch more, but it’s nuanced and requires some background.  The big thing is the convergence of the evidence.

When we separate the sources, the doublets make seeming contradictions disappear, the name of God and terminology divide consistently,

This is not correct. The division of sources by the use of divine epithets only works in the most general sense, and then only when primarily supported by other stronger evidence. Again, redaction criticism must play a role in this, and historical layers are not easy things to decouple.

Andrew - 13 December 2009 01:44 PM

the linguistic evolution is obvious and woven-together narratives-once separated by source-can stand on their own.

This is an overstatement. The linguistic evidence is nowhere near obvious, and rarely can narratives stand on their own for more than a few chapters at a time.

Andrew - 13 December 2009 01:44 PM

The best argument for the Documentary Hypothesis is that it accounts for the convergence of the evidence.

Not very well. It leaves a lot of questions unanswered and was developed on rather uncritical 19th century presuppositions. The new supplementary hypothesis and the fragmentary hypothesis offer answers to problems with DC (although I disagree with Van Seters’ prioritization of Deuteronomy over Exodus). Joel Baden’s recent dissertation makes a considerable contribution to the discussion. A combination of all three of the above provides the most answers, although that’s not perfect either. As an introduction to the issues involved, see MacKenzie and Graham, eds., The Hebrew Bible Today: An Introduction to Critical Issues (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), specifically Van Seters’ chapter; Anselm C. Hagedorn, “Taking the Pentateuch to the Twenty-First Century,” Expository Times 119.2 (2007): 53-58; Joel S. Baden, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 68; Tuebingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009); Levin, “The Yahwist: The Earliest Editor in the Pentateuch” Journal of Biblical Literature 126.2 (2007): 209-30.

 
Daniel O. McClellan
 
Avatar
 
 
Daniel O. McClellan
Total Posts:  174
Joined  27-08-2009
 
 
 
20 December 2009 20:28
 
Andrew - 16 December 2009 07:57 AM

Both J and E often anthropomorphize (?) the diety.  It reflects an earlier, less sophisticated stage in the development of the religion.

Less sophisticated? Anthropomorphism existed throughout Israelite religion and well into Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity. Augustine of Hippo was really the first real opponent of anthropomorphism in Christianity, and in Judaism it wasn’t until Maimonides and others that anthropomorphism was fully mitigated. You’re leaning on quite presentistic and Hegelian presuppositions here about the evolution of religion.

[ Edited: 21 December 2009 09:02 by Daniel O. McClellan]
 
W. Collins
 
Avatar
 
 
W. Collins
Total Posts:  2451
Joined  13-07-2009
 
 
 
21 December 2009 00:52
 
Daniel O. McClellan - 20 December 2009 07:28 PM
Andrew - 16 December 2009 07:57 AM

...It reflects an earlier, less sophisticated stage in the development of the religion.

Unsophisticated? (...)

Not unsophisticated. He clearly said less sophisticated. Two very different things.

 
 
Daniel O. McClellan
 
Avatar
 
 
Daniel O. McClellan
Total Posts:  174
Joined  27-08-2009
 
 
 
21 December 2009 09:05
 
Wcollins260 - 20 December 2009 11:52 PM
Daniel O. McClellan - 20 December 2009 07:28 PM
Andrew - 16 December 2009 07:57 AM

...It reflects an earlier, less sophisticated stage in the development of the religion.

Unsophisticated? (...)

Not unsophisticated. He clearly said less sophisticated. Two very different things.

My mistake. Thanks for pointing that out. My point remains, though.

 
Andrew
 
Avatar
 
 
Andrew
Total Posts:  9231
Joined  15-06-2006
 
 
 
21 December 2009 09:50
 
Daniel O. McClellan - 20 December 2009 07:20 PM

While I am in total agreement that the Pentateuch is crafted from multiple sources spread out over a long period of time, I think your explanations draw on rather outdated and uncritical opinions.

(Andrew):  The Documentary Hypothesis is the theory “that the Pentateuch is crafted from multiple sources spread over a long period of time”, so I’m happy you’re on board.  My explanations come from scholars in this particular field of study.  Nothing that I’ve read recently, until this post, suggests that their scholarship is outdated and/or uncritical.
That’s not to say that there isn’t vigorous debate among scholars as to the dating or attribution of this or that verse, but the underlying point—that the “Pentateuch is crafted from multiple sources spread out over a long period of time”...i.e., the Documentary Hypothesis…is not in (serious) dispute.

Daniel O. McClellan - 20 December 2009 07:20 PM

To begin with, the possibility of dating texts through linguistic means has been a controversial topic for decades…

(Andrew):  Right.  Always there’s controversy.  That’s why it’s called an “Hypothesis”.  I thought I made it clear early on in this thread that not all scholars are in lockstep on every aspect of the Documentary Hypothesis.

Daniel O. McClellan - 20 December 2009 07:20 PM

...with the scholarly consensus leaning toward the conclusion that it’s not a strong position.

(Andrew):  None that I’ve read.  The linguistic differences are not determinative, anyway, but another piece of the puzzle.

Daniel O. McClellan - 20 December 2009 07:20 PM

Some elements of very late Biblical Hebrew are distinguishable from early elements, but late authors also introduce archaicizing syntax and grammar into their texts when they want to make them look older.

(Andrew):  How do you know that?

Daniel O. McClellan - 20 December 2009 07:20 PM

Texts like Ruth, for instance, have some elements of Biblical Hebrew prose that are considered very, very early, while other elements are argued by others to be very late.

(Andrew):  That turns out not to be such a rarity…some verses can be broken down line by line, each demonstrated to have come from a different source at different times.

(Andrew-previously):  There’s terminology.  Certain words and phrases occur consistently in a particular source, but never, or seldom, in another.  For instance, the phrase “be fruitful and multiply” occurs twelve times—-all in P.  The phrase “the place where Yahweh sets His name” or “the place where Yahweh tents His name” is found ten times in D, but never once in J, E or P.  The word cubit appears 59 times in the Torah, 56 are in P.
That sort of thing.  There are hundreds of examples.

Daniel O. McClellan - 20 December 2009 07:20 PM

But this kind of categorization can be done post-hoc. If we simply group terms together and draw lines around them saying “this is one source and this is another” then we preclude even the possibility of variation in genre and prose from a single author, which is never a good idea.

(Andrew):  That’s not what’s going on.  It’s the cumulative evidence.  No one suggests that “be fruitful and mulitiply”, in isolation, is evidence for P, for example.  But when other P indicators are present and the accumulation of them all points to P and no other source, then it’s a little more definite.

Daniel O. McClellan - 20 December 2009 07:20 PM

This is why the documentary hypothesis has been revised so many times and is currently not favored over other theories, like the supplementary hypothesis and the new supplementary hypothesis.

(Andrew):  Never heard of them.  Googling for “supplementary hypothesis” takes me to Wm Friedman’s The Bible with Sources Revealed which is on my shelf and one of my main resources.  Can you tell me a bit about the “supplementary hypothesis” and explain how it’s supplanted the Documentary Hypothesis among scholars?

(Andrew-previoulsy):  Narrative continuity is evident.  I’ve already shown how the flood story is an obvious conflation of two traditions, but there are other examples of the same thing—if the sources are separated, the different texts offer a continuous, rational narrative on their own.

Daniel O. McClellan - 20 December 2009 07:20 PM

I disagree that the marco-narratives provide continuity once isolated from each other.

(Andrew):  I’ve no idea what you mean by “macro-narrative”, but I’ve posted two passages that, when broken down to source, are continuous rational narratives.

Daniel O. McClellan - 20 December 2009 07:20 PM

On a chapter by chapter basis this is sometimes found, but rarely on a larger scale than that.

(Andrew):  I miss your point.  If a passage—regardless of size—can be divided into one or more narratives that are continuous and coherent, it shows intentional combination.  Which is the heart of the Documentary Hypothesis.

(Andrew-previously):  When we separate the sources, the doublets make seeming contradictions disappear, the name of God and terminology divide consistently…

Daniel O. McClellan - 20 December 2009 07:20 PM

This is not correct. The division of sources by the use of divine epithets only works in the most general sense, and then only when primarily supported by other stronger evidence.

(Andrew):  This is not correct.  In the two creation accounts (among many other examples of doublets that I’ve given) the name for the diety divides exactly by source. 
(Andrew-previously):  The best argument for the Documentary Hypothesis is that it accounts for the convergence of the evidence.

Daniel O. McClellan - 20 December 2009 07:20 PM

Not very well.

(Andrew):  So far, it’s the only argument that accounts for the convergence of the evidence.  Unless you subscribe to Daystar’s “Godidit” theory.

[ Edited: 21 December 2009 10:01 by Andrew]
 
 
Andrew
 
Avatar
 
 
Andrew
Total Posts:  9231
Joined  15-06-2006
 
 
 
21 December 2009 09:59
 
Daniel O. McClellan - 20 December 2009 07:28 PM

Less sophisticated?

(Andrew):  Yes.

Daniel O. McClellan - 20 December 2009 07:20 PM

Anthropomorphism existed throughout Israelite religion and well into Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity.

(Andrew):  And probably still exists today in some areas.  But the priests who redacted and edited the Torah during or shortly after the exile didn’t subscribe to it…as is evident by their contribution.

 
 
Andrew
 
Avatar
 
 
Andrew
Total Posts:  9231
Joined  15-06-2006
 
 
 
21 December 2009 10:22
 
Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 08:05 AM
Wcollins260 - 20 December 2009 11:52 PM
Daniel O. McClellan - 20 December 2009 07:28 PM
Andrew - 16 December 2009 07:57 AM

...It reflects an earlier, less sophisticated stage in the development of the religion.

Unsophisticated? (...)

Not unsophisticated. He clearly said less sophisticated. Two very different things.

My mistake. Thanks for pointing that out. My point remains, though.

(Andrew):  If your point is that the Hebrew religion didn’t become more sophisticated and less anthropomophic over time, then it’s not been made.  If your point is that religions don’t pass through an anthropomorhic stage as they become more sophisticated, it’s not been made.

[ Edited: 21 December 2009 10:25 by Andrew]
 
 
Daniel O. McClellan
 
Avatar
 
 
Daniel O. McClellan
Total Posts:  174
Joined  27-08-2009
 
 
 
21 December 2009 10:45
 
Andrew - 21 December 2009 09:22 AM
Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 08:05 AM
Wcollins260 - 20 December 2009 11:52 PM
Daniel O. McClellan - 20 December 2009 07:28 PM
Andrew - 16 December 2009 07:57 AM

...It reflects an earlier, less sophisticated stage in the development of the religion.

Unsophisticated? (...)

Not unsophisticated. He clearly said less sophisticated. Two very different things.

My mistake. Thanks for pointing that out. My point remains, though.

(Andrew):  If your point is that the Hebrew religion didn’t become more sophisticated and less anthropomophic over time, then it’s not been made.  If your point is that religions don’t pass through an anthropomorhic stage as they become more sophisticated, it’s not been made.

My point is that anti-anthropomorphism isn’t an element of pre-exilic Israelite religion. The universalization of Yahweh is often misinterpreted as anti-anthropomorphism, but anthropomorphism was the dominant perspective for thousands of years and wasn’t aggressively militated against until the Middle Ages. The priestly source is not anti-anthropomorphic, and anthropomorphism as an evolutionary stage in religion is horribly Hegelian (in other words, depends entirely on 19th century German assumptions about religion) and is a position that has been rejected by scholars for decades. And just saying “Nu-uh!” doesn’t really address my concerns.

 
Andrew
 
Avatar
 
 
Andrew
Total Posts:  9231
Joined  15-06-2006
 
 
 
21 December 2009 11:16
 
Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 09:45 AM

My point is that anti-anthropomorphism isn’t an element of pre-exilic Israelite religion.

(Andrew):  No one has said that it is.  I don’t mean to imply that the priests had something against anthropomorphism and so actively excluded it.  “Anti-anthropomorphism” is not the same as moving beyond anthropomorhism in the natural evolution and development of a religion…which is where I was going.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 09:45 AM

...anthropomorphism as an evolutionary stage in religion is horribly Hegelian (in other words, depends entirely on 19th century German assumptions about religion)...

(Andrew):  Yeah?  That, by itself, is supposed to….what?  Disprove something?  You’ll have to do better.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 09:45 AM

...and is a position that has been rejected by scholars for decades.

(Andrew):  Who?  Which scholars?  Cite some sources and post some relevant passages from them.*  Please.
Suggesting that something should be rejected because you say it’s “horribly Hegleian” doesn’t advance the conversation very much…and really borders on intellectual snobbery.
I don’t pretend to know all there is to know about this, and would be interested in learning more.  But I’m way, way beyond the point of taking the unsubstantiated word of some internet nob.
No offense.


*Like this (pardon typos):

...there were two main problems which needed to be discussed, two outstanding question to which an answer was slowly evolved.  These we may call the problems of creation and of revelation;  the questions: “How did God make the world?” and “How can and does God communicate with man?”
Neither problem presented any real difficulty to the rather more primitive Hebrew of pre-exilic days.  His conception of God was anthropomorphic, and he thought of Yahweh as possessing a physical body, not unlike that of man, though with much greater powers.  The creation of the world, then, was accomplished just as a human artificer would construct a work of art.  The story told in Genesis 2 assumes the existence of the world, and offers no speculation as to how matter came into being.  It tells of Yahweh modeling the moistened clay to make first man, then the animals, and speaks of His planting the garden in which His man is placed.  The heavens are the work of His fingers, and His hands have fashioned the earth.
A more sophisticated age could not be content with such a position, and as the conception of Yahweh grew more spiritual and less material, it became necessary to look for some other explanation of the Universe.  The outlook of the first centuries after the Exile is represented in Genesis 1.  The contrast with the older narrative is very striking.  All the anthropomorphism has vanished, and in its place we have a stately, scientific, almost evolutionary process.

—Oesterly and Robinson in Hebrew Religion—Its Origin and Developments

[ Edited: 21 December 2009 11:47 by Andrew]
 
 
Daniel O. McClellan
 
Avatar
 
 
Daniel O. McClellan
Total Posts:  174
Joined  27-08-2009
 
 
 
21 December 2009 11:50
 
Andrew - 21 December 2009 10:16 AM

(Andrew):  No one has said that it is.

You said, “But the priests who redacted and edited the Torah during or shortly after the exile didn’t subscribe to it:as is evident by their contribution.” You seem unaware that the beginning of P dates to before the exile. Irrespective, as I pointed out, anti-anthropomorphism doesn’t reach the biblical text at all, and doesn’t reach the religions of the Bible until centuries later.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 10:16 AM

I don’t mean to imply that the priests had something against anthropomorphism and so actively excluded it.  “Anti-anthropomorphism” is not the same as moving beyond anthropomorhism in the natural evolution and development of a religion…which is where I was going.

And this is all fallacious. You’re presupposing an evolutionary model that you can neither defend nor even explain. You simply accept it when others say “religions evolved,” and you don’t seem aware that these ideas have been out of date since before you were born.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 10:16 AM

(Andrew):  Yeah?  That, by itself, is supposed to….what?  Disprove something?  You’ll have to do better.

Yeah, it does disprove something. Since your idea about anthropomorphism as “elss sophisticated” is based entirely on a fallacious model of religious evolution, your assertion is meaningless. I’ve doe my part. Saying “Nu-uh!” doesn’t support a thing.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 10:16 AM

(Andrew):  Who?  Which scholars?  Cite some sources and post some relevant passages from them.  Please.

I cited the relevant sources in my first response to you. I’m not doing the rest of your research for you.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 10:16 AM

Suggesting that something should be rejected because you say it’s “horribly Hegleian” doesn’t advance the conversation very much…and really borders on intellectual snobbery.

Don’t waste my time with posturing. If you don’t want to do the research then don’t make the assertions.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 10:16 AM

I don’t pretend to know all there is to know about this, and would be interested in learning more.

Evidently not.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 10:16 AM

But I’m way, way beyond the point of taking the unsubstantiated word of some internet nob.
No offense.

Again, don’t waste my time. If you have a real response then post it. “Nu-uh!” doesn’t advance your argument any further.

 
Daniel O. McClellan
 
Avatar
 
 
Daniel O. McClellan
Total Posts:  174
Joined  27-08-2009
 
 
 
21 December 2009 11:57
 
Andrew - 21 December 2009 08:50 AM

(Andrew):  The Documentary Hypothesis is the theory “that the Pentateuch is crafted from multiple sources spread over a long period of time”, so I’m happy you’re on board.  My explanations come from scholars in this particular field of study.  Nothing that I’ve read recently, until this post, suggests that their scholarship is outdated and/or uncritical.

No, it is one theory about the cobbling together of the Pentateuch. There are several others, and if you haven’t run across any it’s because your reading isn’t up to date. The publications I cited should help.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 08:50 AM

That’s not to say that there isn’t vigorous debate among scholars as to the dating or attribution of this or that verse, but the underlying point—that the “Pentateuch is crafted from multiple sources spread out over a long period of time”...i.e., the Documentary Hypothesis…is not in (serious) dispute.

Actually it very much is. Your perspective is popular among amateurs who haven’t been exposed to the most recent literature, but I assure you it is outdated.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 08:50 AM

(Andrew):  Right.  Always there’s controversy.  That’s why it’s called an “Hypothesis”.  I thought I made it clear early on in this thread that not all scholars are in lockstep on every aspect of the Documentary Hypothesis.

A popular but naive assumption. The Documentary Hypothesis is just one of several theories, and right now it’s not even the most popular.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 08:50 AM

(Andrew):  None that I’ve read.

And I’ve cited more up to date literature, so that shortcoming can be remedied.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 08:50 AM

The linguistic differences are not determinative, anyway, but another piece of the puzzle.

But a weak piece, as I stated.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 08:50 AM

(Andrew):  How do you know that?

Because this is my specialization. You can find out more about who I am on my blog, danielomcclellan.wordpress.com. A good recent publication on this is Martin Ehrensvaumlrd, “Once again: The problem of dating biblical Hebrew,” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 11.1 (1997): 29-40. A new series of books by Robert Holmstedt and others is also in publication that show the weakness of dating biblical texts linguistically.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 08:50 AM

(Andrew):  That turns out not to be such a rarity…some verses can be broken down line by line, each demonstrated to have come from a different source at different times.

There are scholars who presume to do that, but they aren’t widely accepted, and every scholar has an entirely different breakdown of the sources. The widely accepted divisions are far more general than you seem to be aware.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 08:50 AM

(Andrew):  That’s not what’s going on.  It’s the cumulative evidence.

It doesn’t matter how much fallacious evidence you can stack up, it’s still fallacious. There are a number of good reasons to see seams in the literature, but you haven’t pointed to any yet.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 08:50 AM

No one suggests that “be fruitful and mulitiply”, in isolation, is evidence for P, for example.  But when other P indicators are present and the accumulation of them all points to P and no other source, then it’s a little more definite.

Like I said, this is mostly post-hoc. There are other reasons these texts tend to be separated down lines that preserve some linguistic differentiation, but linguistic data is not the main reason, nor does it hold consistently to the divisions.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 08:50 AM

(Andrew):  Never heard of them.  Googling for “supplementary hypothesis” takes me to Wm Friedman’s The Bible with Sources Revealed which is on my shelf and one of my main resources.  Can you tell me a bit about the “supplementary hypothesis” and explain how it’s supplanted the Documentary Hypothesis among scholars?

I cited scholarship that does just that, but a good rule of thumb when you’re research scholarship is never use Google. Use Google Scholar if you have to, but never regular Google. The documentary hypothesis holds that an author or group of authors sat down with a number of sources and cut and pasted them together in relatively identifiable chunks. The supplementary hypothesis holds that a base text began forming that had supplementary texts added to it over time by numerous different authors. The fragmentary hypothesis holds that an author or groups of authors took a number of fragmentary stories and cobbled them together to form an entirely new composition.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 08:50 AM

(Andrew):  I’ve no idea what you mean by “macro-narrative”, but I’ve posted two passages that, when broken down to source, are continuous rational narratives.

Macro narratives are larger narratives that span more than a couple chapters at a time. Two passages are hardly representative of the entire Pentateuch, and I already said it’s rare, not entirely non-existent.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 08:50 AM

(Andrew):  I miss your point.  If a passage—regardless of size—can be divided into one or more narratives that are continuous and coherent, it shows intentional combination.  Which is the heart of the Documentary Hypothesis.

No, it’s not the heart. It’s an element of it, but the documentary hypothesis differs from other models in the manner in which sources were combined and edited. You’re arguing from a remarkably naive perspective.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 08:50 AM

(Andrew-previously):  When we separate the sources, the doublets make seeming contradictions disappear, the name of God and terminology divide consistently…

No, the names of God do not divide consistently. If you wish to assert they do please cite some literature where that is shown to be the case.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 08:50 AM

(Andrew):  This is not correct.  In the two creation accounts (among many other examples of doublets that I’ve given) the name for the diety divides exactly by source.

Three chapters of scripture hardly conflict with my statement that it is only generally true. In addition, these chapters are divided by other stronger indicators.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 08:50 AM

(Andrew):  So far, it’s the only argument that accounts for the convergence of the evidence.  Unless you subscribe to Daystar’s “Godidit” theory.

I’ve pointed out several other theories and several publications which support them. Please address those texts if you wish to disagree. “Nu-uh!” means nothing.

 
 < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›